Apparel Fzco v Sheeraz Iqbal

An applicant seeking a without-notice freezing injunction must give full and fair disclosure and present the evidence objectively. The duty includes drawing attention to material evidence supporting an arguable defence, identifying weaknesses in the applicant’s case, and making proper inquiries. Material non-disclosure may require discharge even if the injunction would otherwise have been granted, although the court retains a limited discretion to continue or renew relief where the interests of justice require it.

A freezing injunction also requires a good arguable case and solid evidence of a real risk of future unjustified dissipation. Dishonesty or general suspicion alone is insufficient. The court must assess whether current assets remain at risk and should not conduct a preliminary trial of disputed facts.

Apparel Fzco obtained a without-notice freezing injunction against Sheeraz Iqbal in February 2024. The order was granted after a private hearing on evidence and submissions presented for Apparel.

On the return date, Mr Iqbal applied to discharge the order for material non-disclosure. Apparel sought its continuation or reinstatement. The alleged non-disclosure included failure to highlight correspondence suggesting that Mr Iqbal might himself have been deceived into acting as an agent, and the presentation of disputed inferences as established facts.

The court therefore had to decide whether the original order should be discharged and, if so, whether it should nevertheless be continued or re-made on the evidence then available.

1. Material non-disclosure. The applicant’s affidavit, skeleton argument and oral presentation fell significantly short of the required fair and objective presentation. The Agency Emails should have been specifically drawn to the judge’s attention because, if genuine, they disclosed an obvious potential defence: that Mr Iqbal had been duped into acting as an agent in a genuine-looking transaction. The applicant should also have identified the absence of direct evidence that Mr Iqbal was the impersonators and the significance of his longstanding relationship with LGD.
2. Several statements in the supporting affidavit presented submissions and inferences as facts, lacked identified sources of knowledge, or were positively misleading. The skeleton argument repeated that approach and contained no proper section addressing full and frank disclosure. The answer given to the judge’s repeated request for adverse matters was itself misleading.
3. The principles summarised in Tugushev v Orlov and approved in Derma Med v Ally were applied. Material non-disclosure generally requires discharge, even where the order might otherwise have been made. The court retains a discretion to continue or make a fresh order, exercised sparingly and by reference to the interests of justice, including the importance of the omitted facts, culpability, deterrence and the risk of injustice.
4. Apparel’s case did not meet the good arguable case threshold. The evidence raised an arguable and properly pleadable inference of involvement, but the extensive emails and WhatsApp messages provided a plausible evidential basis for Mr Iqbal’s account that he had been deceived. The court should not resolve disputed authenticity issues or descend into a preliminary trial.
5. There was no solid evidence of a current real risk of unjustified dissipation. The goods and sale proceeds had passed to third parties, with no evidence that the recipient companies remained linked to Mr Iqbal. The circumstances therefore amounted to a stable-door case. Dishonesty, doubts about assets and an initially defensive reaction did not, viewed cumulatively, establish the required risk.
6. Apparel’s application to continue or reinstate the order was dismissed. Mr Iqbal’s application to discharge the order succeeded.